Yes, I was referring to Finland, which scrapped its UBI experiment after two years after finding it doesn't incentivize work and encourages sloth, to literally no one's surprise.

Click to expand...

The Finnish experiment was "scrapped" after two years because it was designed to be "scrapped" after two years, not to be a permanent solution. You know, like an experiment. The results were inconclusive; employment didn't rise but neither did sloth. Biggest change was that the people who were part of the experiment had major improvement to their quality of life, even though they didn't have more money than those in the control group (Finnish social security is generous anyway, it just has plenty of bureacracy and incentive traps).

On the other hand, there were multiple huge problems with the experiment in the first place: for one only long term unemployed people were chosen to participate so there's likely other reasons to their unemployment than just incentives, and also the experiment used a model that would be way too expensive because it didn't include the needed changes to taxation that really make the system sustainable.

The Finnish experiment was "scrapped" after two years because it was designed to be "scrapped" after two years, not to be a permanent solution. You know, like an experiment. The results were inconclusive; employment didn't rise but neither did sloth. Biggest change was that the people who were part of the experiment had major improvement to their quality of life, even though they didn't have more money than those in the control group (Finnish social security is generous anyway, it just has plenty of bureacracy and incentive traps).

On the other hand, there were multiple huge problems with the experiment in the first place: for one only long term unemployed people were chosen to participate so there's likely other reasons to their unemployment than just incentives, and also the experiment used a model that would be way too expensive because it didn't include the needed changes to taxation that really make the system sustainable.

Click to expand...

Final results aren't out yet. Only for first yearm first year didn't find huge quality of life improvements, only that people were happier. That's it, they reported being happier, not materially or mentally better. In the other hand, no employment change.

We should also be wary of extrapolating the effects of national welfare programs from a country of 5.5 million people with jus sanguinis and where 98% of the population is either Finnish or hailing from neighboring countries...

... and our own which is sixty times larger, and even within the same ethnicities and states, familial bonds are minimal if even extant. Before we even consider the cultural tolerance of such policy.

In short, I doubt an American program could so much as reach the lofty heights of "more happy".

Urbanites will claim it is nowhere near enough and is a plot to eliminate other programs and replace with false promises.

Ruralites will resent any proposed changes as squeezing them for the sake of the cities. Both they and the left will scream over any proposed VAT.

Everyone will be angry when programs that affect other people are inevitably not phased out.

That said, nobody will want to get rid of it once it's in place. Like social sec or medicare, it will be attacked, recognized as unsustainable... but more because ~other people~ did or didn't do something than an actual stomach for abolishment.

Last edited: Mar 12, 2019

You know you're something when you can line up Arthellion, DR, and Vlad on the same side ~ Nazgus

Only if it removes existing programs. Given how people react right now with gentrification or moving public housing, I would suspect they would react badly to perceived government policy aimed at moving them out of high value real estate/ high cost of living areas.

Ie, the urban poor will resent being shoved out, the suburban poor will resent once again having to sell devalued homes and move away again (though the suburban wealthy will enjoy being the new gentrifiers), and the rural will resent them both.

It is absurd to have the majority of poor people living in the middle of cities, but it's nonetheless very complicated, affecting everything from public transit to outlying community integrity to the not unreasonable point that a city requires masses of low-skill workers to run and yet those same people being told to bugger off elsewhere is obnoxious.

You know you're something when you can line up Arthellion, DR, and Vlad on the same side ~ Nazgus

Isn't the major reason they are living in the middle of the cities despite being overpriced and with bad infrastructure its because its where the jobs are and they dont have to spend a lot of money and time commuting?

I don't know. The American model has developed very differently from elsewhere; not just elsewhere as in places with better public transit (europe, japan) but elsewhere compared to latin america, south asia, etc.

It also seems to hold more or less true across American cities, regardless of if we are talking about the sprawl of Texas or the more compact NE Corridor.

Poor live at location X because Y doesn't seem like a simple equation.

You know you're something when you can line up Arthellion, DR, and Vlad on the same side ~ Nazgus

In practice, I'll believe it when I see it. No existing programs will be phased out. Approximating the eligible population at approx 250 million (based on eligible voters), then that's 3 trillion dollars a year, or three times more than the current budgeted federal welfare programs.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily diagareeing with your point but I think your math might be slightly off.

250mil eligible participants x $1000 per person = $250Bil

Still not an insignificant price tag but not impossible to manage through some clever redistrubition of welfare funds and smart taxation.

Edit: My mistake. I forgot to factor in the 12 months

Last edited: Mar 13, 2019

Good Omens said:

"Asteroid strike?" said Aziraphale. "Quite the fashion these days, I understand. Strike into the Indian Ocean, great big clouds of dust and vapor, goodbye all higher lifeforms."